Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is one of the more annoying aspects of the steroid age, not knowing. That is why it is a problem which will be around for quite a while now as the Roid Stars retire and become elligible for the HoF. If Arod plays another five seasons, it won't be until 2022 when they vote on him for the first time.
What will really make it all much worse is if they enshrine someone who was never named as a user, and a year or two later it comes out that he too had been a juicer. Everyone is a suspect....well, everyone except the ones we already know for sure.
That is what happens when innuendo, supposition and belief take the place of laws. Braun not only contested the way it was handled but also stated that he was innocent of the charge itself. Though he won on the basis that something could have potentially happened to the sample he also stated that he had not used.
Your suggestion that this is the "annoying aspects" is consistent with all laws and courtrooms not just this series of tests. Truck drivers, pilots etc etc have similar issues and the same problems occur. However they actually can kill many people if they are juiced. Baseball...? Though dissapointing, it's not like the game (or anything else in life) is so pure that rational people cannot disagree. The point is not whether he is guilty, the point is whether his use or non use gave him an unfair advantage.
Did Honus use? How about the Babe? We will never know. Did MLB spike the baseballs to create fan attendance? Again, we never know. Laws are designed to protect people from harm. I can't think of any benefit to testing seriously other than to minimize use of drugs. But moral implications aside, Baseball is a game. It's not even the Indy where a using driver can actually kill a bunch of people. Juiced in right field? Not a problem, ask Canseco.
We want our peeps to be moral, fair and true. Many are. Some are not. When any agency tries to control behavior this is what we are left with. From fakery to villany and everything in between. That is the way it rolls and it's an age old problem. Am I dissapointed? Yep. Am I willing to condemn or convict Braun? Nope. Bonds....? Silly questions really. These men are innocent until proven guilty. They walk with their talent intact.
Take a bow if you want for maligning either one. It's baseball.
In that the first experiments with injecting humans with steroids took place in the USSR in the 1940's, I'm going to guess that no, Honus and the Babe were not juiced.
MOD CUT
Last edited by NewToCA; 02-25-2012 at 10:26 AM..
Reason: let's stop the personal comments, please
Bonds is innocent. He has never tested positive for steroids. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.
technicality, just like Braun
there was really good evidence but a judge ruled it was inadmissible and therefore he got off, this was part of the federal trial if I remember correctly.
there was really good evidence but a judge ruled it was inadmissible and therefore he got off, this was part of the federal trial if I remember correctly.
The samples which were allegedly positive for steroids were mishandled far worse than Braun's sample. Prosecutors were stunned and they next relied upon Greg Anderson to rat our his friend. When he would not he was jailed on three times for over one year total prison time. Guess he admired and liked Bonds. A good friend.
I am disappointed that Braun tests were positive however he denies and the debate goes on. One would think with current tech the same could be taken transported and tested within one hour and then sent on for further tests never leaving the custody of the collector. I hope that Braun is telling the truth for his own and baseball fan's sake.
Greg Anderson to rat our his friend. When he would not he was jailed on three times for over one year total prison time. Guess he admired and liked Bonds. A good friend.
Why aren't you putting this together in your head? If Anderson's testimony is "I never provided Barry Bonds with steroids and never saw him take any"..then why would he have any problem coming forward on behalf of his "good friend?"
The only possible reason for Anderson to refuse to testify, even to the point of getting jailed, is that he has first hand knowledge of Bonds' steroid use.if he is Barry's friend, that can only mean he is protecting Bonds with his refusals to testify.
If he knew Bonds was innocent, but would rather go to jail then come forward and say that, then he sure isn't Bonds' friend, is he?
You cannot have it both ways. If you characterize Anderson's actions as those of a friend, that condemns Bonds by confirming his guilt.
Why aren't you putting this together in your head? If Anderson's testimony is "I never provided Barry Bonds with steroids and never saw him take any"..then why would he have any problem coming forward on behalf of his "good friend?"
The only possible reason for Anderson to refuse to testify, even to the point of getting jailed, is that he has first hand knowledge of Bonds' steroid use.if he is Barry's friend, that can only mean he is protecting Bonds with his refusals to testify.
If he knew Bonds was innocent, but would rather go to jail then come forward and say that, then he sure isn't Bonds' friend, is he?
You cannot have it both ways. If you characterize Anderson's actions as those of a friend, that condemns Bonds by confirming his guilt.
Well, I will say it again. Those who believe in the justice system probably don't have a problem with your argument. Those of us who live in a world where the justice system is unfair, discriminatory, and puts innocent people in jail see it the other.
Bonds experience will I think bring clarity. He was interviewed by 3 prosecutors at one time. At the end of this he was convicted of giving false testimony. It was evident to his attorneys (who successfully defended him getting most evidence thrown out), to the judge (who consistently ruled that Bonds had been placed in tricky situations, and to the jury(who found him innocent of all but the previous tricky situation).
Greg Anderson looked at this "circus" of deception, trickery and injustice and decided as a reasonable man would IMO to keep his mouth shut. So to answer your pejorative question, he did not say anything because he knew -as do most- that his words could and would be twisted to be used against his good friend Barry.
Perhaps you have lived in a world where this could not have occurred and I would say that you're luckier than most. Most people have not a problem with what Anderson did. It was and remains one of the noble and perhaps one of the most noble parts of this tawdry effort to get Bonds to embarrass him and worse because he was one of the greatest players ever to swing a baseball bat and to play the game.
Survey...how many here think that AADAD's above explanation for Anderson's silence makes any sense at all?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
